Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6880 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Respondent :- Pushpa Devi And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- Rahul Sahai
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the District Judge, Ballia in Civil Revision No.02 of 2018 (Ajay Kumar vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi and others) as well as order dated 10.11.2017 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Second, East, Ballia in Original Suit no.316/2013 (Ajay Kumar vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi and others).
It appears that the Original Suit no.219/1998 (Ajay Kumar vs. Indra Deo Ram and others), which was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff was decreed vide judgement and decree dated 16.10.2004/30.10.2004 on the basis of compromise between the parties. Thereafter, the third respondent namely Indra Deo Ram has executed a Gift Deed on 16.04.2013 in favour of first respondent namely Smt. Pushpa Devi. It also appears that the plaintiff-petitioner has filed Original Suit no.316/2013 (Ajay Kumar vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi and others) for cancellation of aforesaid Gift deed. The defendant in the said suit have denied the compromise in question and thereafter the plaintiff-petitioner has also filed application 76C2 with the request to ask the defendant-respondent to produce the original copy of the Gift Deed dated 16.04.2013 as well as to tally the thumb impression of the said deed. The said application was dismissed on the ground that thumb impression on compromise was taken by plaintiff-petitioner by playing fraud and it is not proper to tally the signature on both deeds. Aggrieved with the said order, the plaintiff- petitioner has moved Revision no.02/2018 (Ajay Kumar vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi), which was also dismissed vide order dated 10.11.2017 passed by the Revisional Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any manifest error apparent on the face of record in the impugned orders so as to justify interference by this Court in extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Both the Courts below have recorded findings of fact and unless these findings are shown perverse or contrary to record resulting in grave injustice to petitioner, in writ jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court exercising restricted and narrow jurisdiction would not be justified in interfering with the same.
In supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority.
This power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.
In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee 1953 SC 58 Hon'ble Supreme Court said:
"Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere."
A Constitution Bench of Apex Court examined the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution in Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another AIR 1954 SC 215 and made following observations at p.
571 :
"This power of superintendence conferred by article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J. in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee AIR 1951 Cal. 193, to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors".
The Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Others AIR 1958 SC 398 settled that power under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the courts below function within the limit of its authority or jurisdiction.
Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to examine this aspect of the matter in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Others (1983) 4 SCC 566 in which Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority," and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. For this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision."
The said view has also been reiterated by the Apex Court in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani & Another v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC 576 and the Apex Court had again cautioned that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.
A three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rena Drego (Mrs.) v. Lalchand Soni & Others (1998) 3 SCC 341 again abundantly made it clear that the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it.
In Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2006 ) 8 SCC 294, the Apex Court said:
"...while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution, it is provided that the High Court would exercise such powers most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. The power of superintendence exercised over the subordinate courts and tribunals does not imply that the High Court can intervene in the judicial functions of the lower judiciary.
The independence of the subordinate courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is of paramount importance, just as the independence of the superior courts in the discharge of their judicial functions."
In Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329, the Apex Court said that power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. The above authority has been cited and followed in Kokkanda B. Poondacha and others Vs. K.D. Ganapathi and another AIR 2011 SC 1353 and Bandaru Satyanarayana Vs. Imandi Anasuya (2011) 12 SCC 650.
In view thereof, I find no justification warranting interference with the orders impugned in this writ petition.
The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the suit in question may be decided by the Trial Court without being influenced by the observations made by the Trial Court and Revisional Court, while deciding the application 76C2, and also the observations made by this Court while deciding the present writ petition.
Order Date :- 17.9.2018 A. Pandey